Build a House

In Jeremiah 29 God sent a letter to "all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon" (Jer 29:4).

"Okay, now, hold it!" you say. "Hang on a minute! 'All the exiles whom I have sent into exile'? You're saying God sent His own people into exile?" No, no I am not. God is.

But, please, bear with me. It only gets worse.

Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jer 29:5-7)

See, this is not where you might have thought this would go. I mean, right down there a few verses later we have the famous "'I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope'" (Jer 29:11). And God is telling them to make this exile their home? That is the "plans for welfare"? Well, yes ... and no. In the plan there is the return from exile (Jer 29:12-14), but God says it is as a result of what He told them to do in that prior passage. So, no, His plan is for their release from exile, but, yes, His plan includes them making a home of where they are.

We aren't in exile here in America today. We certainly don't experience the kind of persecution that Christians in other countries face. On the other hand, Jesus considers being reviled for our faith "persecution" (Matt 5:11-12) and Hebrews describes all believers as "strangers and exiles on the earth" (Heb 11:13). This world is not our home; we're just passing through. As such, we are, in a sense, exiles -- exiles from heaven awaiting our release to go home. What, then, does this passage tell us to do?

Build houses and make homes. Make families and multiply. Seek the welfare of the place we live. Pray for them. Funny thing. I don't see "Go on a campaign to stop the government from mistreating you" or "Get online to defend your right to practice your religion" or some such. I do see that we're supposed to live here while we live this life. And we're supposed to make families. Since we're talking a spiritual exile, and spiritual strangers here, that must be a spiritual family. You know, the Great Commission. Make disciples. Make brothers and sisters and children where you live. And we're supposed to seek the welfare of the "evil world" in which we find ourselves. Pray for them (1 Tim 2:1-4). Pray for their welfare. Pray for their best. "Be at peace among yourselves" (1 Thess 5:13) and "so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom 12:18).

You Christians in exile on this earth, living in a hostile environment, being told you don't have the right to believe what God's Word says and you are hateful and bigoted if you do, what shall you do? Will you make this place your home, make spiritual families and multiply, seek the welfare of those around you and pray for them? Or not? Jeremiah's text suggests that it's the best way to get to the release we so richly desire.

What You Believe

Many of us can feel fairly confident that we have a pretty good chunk of good doctrine. We have the truth. We embrace the truth. We defend the truth. And that's all good. Those who "defend the truth" that is at odds with God's Word need help; we're happy to give it. Those who sin need help; we're happy to give it.

There is, I think, a nasty little breakdown, however, between possessing good, true doctrine and embracing it. In my opinion the church in America today suffers a lot from shallow theology -- they say, "A mile wide and an inch deep." They're being entertained, not fed. They're being soothed, not edified. All milk, no meat. But I think there is a worse problem. We aren't actually embracing the truth.

Let me explain what I mean. James wrote, "Put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (James 1:21-22) That first part -- "receive with meekness the implanted word" -- is what I'm referring to when I say we have good doctrine. "Hearers only" is the part I'm calling a problem. We hear it. We get it. Good. But do we do it? Not so much.

We read "Bear one another's burdens" and we nod and say, "That's right; that's what we must do," so a fellow believer shares a burden and we say, in our most spiritual voice, "Oh, yeah, I'll pray for you," with just an echo of "Go in peace, be warmed and filled" because we might pray for them, but bear their burden? Probably not. No follow up. No "walk alongside." No checking up. Rubber, meet road. Doesn't happen. We read, "Love your neighbor as yourself" and we nod and say "Amen!" Do we do it? Jesus defined neighbor as anyone in your vicinity (Luke 10:29-37). The Samaritan in Jesus's illustration did things for his neighbor. Praying would be nice, but this guy expended energy, time, and money attempting to meet the man's needs. We give a head nod to "Love your neighbor" because we know that's right, but we don't seem to give it a ... heart nod. It doesn't seem to leave our brains and enter our actions.

Good doctrine is a good thing. Failing to live it, James says, is "deceiving yourselves." The fact is we will always act on what we actually believe. If our actions and attitudes do not reflect our doctrinal beliefs, that says something about what we actually believe. And it's not a good thing.

Peace

Isaiah wrote, "You will keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You" (Isa 26:3).

As we all know, the Hebrew word that we translate to mean "peace" is shâlôm. Peace. We get it. I was surprised, then, to find that the word has a root. The root word is shâlam. Well, now, that's interesting. No, hang on, it really is. Because the meaning of the root word is "to be safe." And it only gets more interesting from there. The word is used to figuratively refer to being friendly, as in making amends, repaying a debt, recompense, making restitution -- redemption.

Where, then, do we find real peace ("perfect peace")? We find it when we are safe, but not just physically safe. We find it when we have a right relationship with God and stand in the security of that redeemed relationship with God. True peace is found there. When we trust in Him. Just like Isaiah said.

News Weakly - 3/23/19

Measures to Prevent Murders
In Zaoyang, China, a man attempted to kill his wife and daughter before driving his car onto a street and ramming pedestrians. At least 6 were killed including a child. The man was shot dead at the scene by police. China is moving for stricter car control laws requiring background checks and decreased gas tank sizes. Bernie Sanders thinks we should do the same. Oh, wait ...

The Intersectionality Hierarchy
You may or may not know the term, "intersectionality." It's fairly new on the scene. It's the point at which your particular characteristics and thoughts intersect to produce discrimination and disadvantage. Say, for instance, you're a person of color. One trait that produces discrimination. But say you're homosexual and a person of color. Okay, now you have two intersecting discrimination problems. If you're a woman, it's three. If you're a transgender woman, it's four. You get the idea. There is, in our world, a hierarchy of intersectionality, where various intersectionality traits are higher rated than others. Christians, for instance, might experience discrimination these days, but, as you all know, that's meager. Very, very, very low. Undetectable to most. We're all aware that African Americans are high on the list, but not as high as they used to be. Women have skyrocketed in the last decade or so. But at the top today is the Muslim. If you are a Muslim, you can discriminate against Jews, homosexuals, black people, women ... all of them because you are at the very top of that intersectionality hierarchy. Witness Fox News's "Judge Jeanine" who said she thought that sharia law was opposed to the Constitution and has been suspended from her broadcast. You don't question the patriotism of a Somali-American (1) woman (2) Muslim (3) who makes anti-Semitic (4) statements and hates Trump (5). I mean, that's five points of intersectionality!

New Word of the Day
Given the slip of rationality in our world today, it stands to reason that we'll have to keep coming up with new terms to describe the unreasonable-yet-given positions that are driving our society. While the "B" in LGBT stands for "bisexual" means "attracted to either" (bi=2) genders, the "T" stands for "Transgender" predicated on the notion that "binary gender is a social construct" (rationally terminating the concept of "bisexual") and we've spawned all sorts of new terms -- "gender dysphoria", "gender fluidity", new pronouns to go along with it, etc. Here's the latest: "misgendering." A mother has dropped her complaint after a journalist wrongly accused her of castrating her transsexual son ... sorry, daughter (you have to go with the story if you're going to report the story). The reporter didn't falsely accuse; she just "misgendered" the woman's "daughter". It is all so confusing these days.

(Postscript: "Misgendering" is what I have done here -- referring to this biological boy as a boy instead of whatever gender he believes his is.)

Legalizing Common Sense
Who says there's no common sense anymore? We do. Texas is actually working toward passing a law to allow children to run lemonade stands in the state. Because we don't have the common sense to figure out that lemonade stands for children are not the same as other types of businesses. "It's a great day for our Texas entrepreneurs," said Rep. Matt Krause, the bill's sponsor. Maybe, but it certainly reflects badly on our inability to figure this stuff out on our own.

Democrat Voter Guide
There is a slew of Dems aiming to become the president in 2020. If you're having trouble sorting them out, this site offers some helpful hints on what they are for and against.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Livin' the Dead Life

Paul urged the Colossians, "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col 2:8). Luckily for us, we know better today, right?

No, of course not. As a matter of fact we know that human traditions and standards are the best ones. We will measure right and wrong, good and bad, profitable or not, improved or not, what we should do and what we shouldn't do -- all of our standards, it seems -- on the philosophies of our world. After all, you don't want to be on "the wrong side of history." On so many things.

Is it okay for women to be in charge of churches? Well, of course it is. Why would anyone ask that? Women are of equal value and they are called to be pastors and they can do a better job than some men who try to be pastors and ... lots of reasons why it's a foolish question. Except that it's all built on human philosophy -- built on human "religion" (self) -- and without regard to Christ and His Word.

How do we -- even many Christians -- determine if homosexual behavior is wrong? Well, do you know a homosexual? Then it's okay. Do they want to do it? Then it's okay. Is it consensual sex? Then it's okay. Do they love each other? Then it's okay. Lots of reasons, all of which are from human philosophy and "the elemental spirits of the world" -- satisfying sensual demands -- and not Christ and His Word.

How should we conduct worship in the church? The current model takes a marketing approach. What do people like? What will draw them into our church? What makes them feel good? It is nothing but human tradition, human philosophy, "the elemental spirits of the world." And we -- Christians -- blithely tie ourselves to them to figure out how we will worship God.

So we disregard Paul's warning about being captivated by the world's perspective and consider those who are leaning on God's Word to be nutcases, evil "fundamentalists." We figure out that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years on all sorts of things and the Bible is not as reliable as we once thought it was and there are a lot of corrections and improvements we can do on our church life, home life, and doctrines. Forgetting that Paul calls it "captivity." Forgetting that Christians are to be operating according to Christ. Forgetting that we have died with Christ to the elemental spirits of the world (Col 2:20). We end up puffed up without reason by the sensuous mind, not holding fast to the Head (Col 2:18-19). We end up deluded by plausible arguments (Col 2:4).

If your value system and your belief system is driven primarily by your own perceptions and the values you find in the world, and you call yourself a Christian, perhaps you need to reevaluate.

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. (Col 3:1-3)

No Creed But Christ

What is a creed? In general, a creed is a statement of beliefs or aims. It is most often associated with Christian or other religious beliefs. But it's fairly straightforward -- "This is what we believe." That's why it's so odd to see Christians declaring, "No creed but Christ." If a creed is "what we believe," "No creed but Christ" is a creed ... and a very odd one indeed.

We know creeds. Or, at least, we know of them. We have all likely heard the Apostles' Creed, almost universally accepted across Christendom. We've heard of the Nicene Creed and the one from Chalcedon and the Athanasian Creed. Very, very few of us can quote them, but we've heard of them. And, of course, there are "confessions," extended statements about "what we believe" -- "creeds" -- like the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession or the Helvetic Confession or the Augsburg Confession. (There are, in fact, quite a few of these. I just listed a few.) These are much larger "creeds" and we're even less familiar with these as with the shorter ones.

The Apostles' Creed is normally thought of as the earliest. (Arguments are made that earlier creeds occur in Scripture. A creed in this category would be Paul's "Jesus is Lord" (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3) and his declaration in 2 Tim 2:11-13. See also 1 Tim 3:16; Titus 3:4-8.) Unlike the simplistic "No creed but Christ" that essentially declares "Christ" without any actual points to believe, the Apostles' Creed makes several concise statements.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the holy Ghost, Born of the virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell, The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, The holy catholic Church, The Communion of saints, The forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the body, And the life everlasting. Amen.

This creed believes in Christ, too, but outlines it more carefully to include God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit along with details about each and about the Church. It is a brief statement, comparatively, but rich in content and solid on the essentials.

But, no, thanks, we don't want that kind of thing. We just want "Christ." Without much definition. He is assumed. While a lot of people believe that Jesus was a real person, from there it devolves. Only 56% (in 2015) believe He was God. More likely a religious leader. Only 52% think He was sinless. Most people think Jesus is a way to heaven, but good deeds are also a way to heaven. There is the Mormon Jesus and the Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus and the Oneness Pentecostals Jesus. Not the same thing. So you see that "Christ" becomes a shifting target when that's your creed. What Christ? Who is He? What is His significance?

Paul told the Philippians "So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind" (Php 2:1-2). If we are to be of the same mind, it is absolutely necessary that we be on the same page in the essentials. It may sound more spiritual to say, "No creed but Christ," but even that is a creed and a nondescript one at that. We should be much clearer on what we believe and where we stand so we can be united, in full accord, and of one mind.

You Don't Know What You're Talking About

I write a lot about definitions. You see, words are not actual substance. They are symbols for communicating ideas and realities. So if we don't define them, we can't communicate those ideas and realities. The simple fact is if you can't define what you're talking about, you don't know what you're talking about.

One I've long complained about is the word, "marriage." I've long maintained that it has a meaning and that today's version ... does not. Certain elements of our society rallied around "marriage equality" without defining either "equality" or "marriage" and they won ... except no one these days knows what they won. Because they were undefined. All we know it they won the right to call what they were doing "marriage," the term they didn't define but are pretty sure we've been doing all along. Unfortunately it is neither "marriage" nor "equality."

Marriage is ordained by God (Gen 2:18–24; cp Matt 19:4-6; Eph 5:28-32). It's part of God's grand plan (Eph 5:31-32; Rev 19:9). It's God's idea. Not ours. We don't get to decide what it is or what to do with it. He does.

One of God's primary components of marriage is that it is for life (Rom 7:2-3). This only makes sense since it is the union of two people (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6; Eph 5:31). To take that apart is a dismemberment. "What God has joined together let no man separate" (Matt 19:6). Divorce, according to Christ, is only due to hard-heartedness, not a praiseworthy motivation (Matt 19:8).

Marriage is the only relationship allowed by God for sexual relations. That aspect is to be honored and guarded (Heb 13:4). It is heterosexual and monogamous (Gen 2:24). (Note: The original meaning of the term "monogamous" is not "having sex with only one person" let alone "only one person at a time," but "married only to one.") Marital sexual relations are to be enjoyed (1 Cor 7:3-4) and exclusive, because it is a union of bodies that creates a union of people (1 Cor 6:16-17) and illustrates the relationship between Christ and His Bride (1 Cor 6:18; Eph 5:32). Sexual relations in marriage are for mutual giving, for mimicking God's relationship with His own, and for procreation.

If properly defined, "marriage" means something, and anyone who wants to enter that "something" has been able to do so. At times for reasons outside of the definition (and, therefore, incorrectly) it has been blocked (for instance, between races) but in our day anyone who wants to marry, given the definition of marriage, has been able to do so. That's marriage equality. And not everyone who considers themselves married, given the definition of marriage, actually is. That's simply a fact. What we have today is neither marriage nor equality, and the carryover has been to eliminate both for all in the public square. If you wish to talk to me about marriage, be sure we're talking about the same thing. Words mean something. This one means a great deal.

The New Civil Rights

I've harped on words forever, I suppose. Too much, some might say. But not me. And here's an example of why.

Have you heard of the Equality Act? It is, quite literally, coming soon to a House of Representatives near you. The goal of the bill is to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to change the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Yeah, yeah, I know ... lots of words. Which is the beginning of the problem. And it only gets worse.

The original Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Easy. We're in favor. Good to go. Are they changing that? Well, no ... and yes. Because they are redefining "sex" to include "sex stereotype, sexual orientation or gender identity, and pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition." They are adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" where gender identity includes " appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual's designated sex at birth." Therefore, while we understood "sex" in the past to refer to "the gender you're born with" and, therefore, no reason to be discriminated against, now it's so much more.

They're not done. They're redefining that "places of public accommodations." It now includes exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays, and goods, services, or programs, including a store, a shopping center, an online retailer or service provider, a salon, a bank, a gas station, a food bank, a service or care center, a shelter, a travel agency, a funeral parlor, or a health care, accounting, or legal service; and transportation services. Notice "gatherings." Is your church a "gathering"? Notice "services" and "programs." Does your bakery, flower store, photography business, or the like (you can see where I'm going with this) offer "services"? Does your Christian school have "programs"? This bill will redefine your life.

They're not done. I quote, "The bill prohibits 'establishment' from being construed to be limited to a physical facility or place." Is it online, at home, at church, anywhere at all?

They're not done. They're expanding "discrimination." If an organization receives federal financial assistance, it cannot consider the factors above. If an organization has 15 or more employees -- like a Christian school or a large church might -- they cannot practice such discrimination. Written right in the bill is the requirement that "Employers must recognize individuals in accordance with their gender identity." And, as I'm sure you might have guessed, "The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity."

On the face of it they're simply "clarifying," but at its heart they are codifying the sexual values and, frankly the incoherent perceptions of sex and gender of our current society. They are not calling for tolerance; they are demanding submission. They are not offering equality; they are requiring Christian views be subservient to the current LGBTQQIA (whatever) demands for embrace and permission. (I looked. Apparently the current "correct" acronym is LGBTQQIP2SAA. Seriously.) They are not saying, "Believe what you will." They are saying, "We don't care anymore about your so-called 1st Amendment rights to free exercise of religion or the prohibition of government to impose religion. We will eliminate your freedom where it suits us and impose the religion of sexual expression and you will concur or face the consequences." They are not allowing for disagreement; they are equating "I believe that certain behaviors are sin" and "I'd rather not participate" with bigotry and hatred. (There are no exceptions whatsoever in the bill for religious practice or religious organizations.) All of this is accomplished by an etymological sleight of hand. "You all agreed about not discriminating due to sex. So, we're make adjustments to what you already agreed to, call it the same thing, and give you what we want you to have." That's the approach. Redefine terms to mean what they want them to mean and feed them back to you because you liked those terms.

Count the Cost (Again)

I recently wrote about the problem we American Christians have with Jesus's "Sell all your possessions" because of our own wealth. "Are you talking to me?" This is not that. We do need to count the cost in other areas.

You may have heard that Jesus said, "Which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?" (Luke 14:28). He did. Do you know the context? To what was He referring when He said it?

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26-27)

Oh, now, hang on a moment. Is Jesus saying that the "cost" we are to count is ... hardship? Yes, yes He is.

Jesus told His disciples, "In the world you will have tribulation" (John 16:33). Notice that there is no ambiguity, no question, not even a "might have." "You will." Peter told his readers, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). Notice, again the complete lack of ambiguity. Not "if it comes upon you," but "when." This is the cost Jesus told them to count. Personal loss. Public loss. Loss of family and friends and even life. Count on it.

We don't, do we? We're the "comfortable Christians." We want to "get along," to be friends with everyone, to suffer no loss, to be on the "right side of history." We encounter family and friends who "come out" as "gay" and we need to reevaluate our understanding of Scripture because "that just can't be." No, it always has been, but we aren't willing to suffer loss, to bear the pain. We are told it is hate to think biblically on some of these topics so ... we don't. Because we are not willing to suffer loss or bear the pain.

Frankly, Christianity is not our idea. We don't get to play with it, manipulate it, make it our own, update it, correct it. It is God's. And because it is God's, it will necessarily clash with our world, our world's values, our world's perceptions. Yours and mine. If you are practicing a Christianity that is comfortable and gets along with the world around you, I would argue that you're not practicing God's Christianity. If you read God's Word and find in it just those things with which you agree, I'd argue that you're not reading God's Word for what it's worth. If your Christian life is pretty comfortable and never contentious as it rubs up against the culture and society, I'd have to say you may not be living God's Christianity. On the other hand, if it is your plan to do just that -- live God's Christianity -- you had better count the cost because the founder of Christianity said it won't always be pleasant. Count on it.

Ministers of Christ

I am reading Colossians and came across Epaphras whom Paul identifies as "a faithful minister of Christ" (Col 1:8). What is that?

We've come to think of a "minister" as a part of the clergy. "Clergy" refers to those ordained by the church. That's all well and good until you read

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

That's odd, isn't it? That says we are all "a royal priesthood," which we would term "clergy" or "ministers," and we are all to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you." Huh. That seems like all believers would be ministers in a sense. Not just, you know, ministers.

Are we? The word in Scripture refers to a servant of any kind. The Greek language used it for military laborers and temple workers and priests and servants of the king or state. Any kind of servant, apparently. And Paul said he was "ministering the gospel of God" (Rom 15:16), so that would be distributing the gospel to those who need it ... as a servant. Hey, we use the word that way, or, at least, we did once. A nurse might "minister to his wounds," where it would mean that she attended to the needs of the person. And that's the real idea here, isn't it?

So ... are we? Are we ministers? Are we, in fact, attending to the needs of our brothers and sisters in Christ? Sometimes I wonder. Watch your typical church gathering and you'll often find an overall sense of "you first." You know, "I'll be glad to take part, but you go first. You invite me. You ask me. You first." We show up to get fed, not to feed. We show up to be served, not to serve. We show up to hear the Word, not to give it. Oh, sure, there is always that 20% who do 80% of the work, but I'm talking about the 80% that don't. Like baby birds, we sit there with our mouths open begging for food and not feeding others. We don't really act like ministers.

I'd like to see that. I'd like to see a church where people are reaching out rather than in. I'd like to see a place where the majority have a primary concern of giving, not getting. Giving time, prayer, attention, the Word, support, and, yeah, okay, money, too. But that is way down on my list. I would like to see a church where you couldn't walk in without being engaged, cared for, embraced, and not merely physically. Well, we're not there. Answering my own question, no, we are not, as a whole, ministers. We'll just leave that up to the professionals. Even though we should be "trying this at home." Even without the quotes. (I mean, seriously, ministering as servants at home and everywhere else.) Just a thought.

News Weakly - 3/16/19

Speaking Truth to Power
I cannot fathom this story about Elizabeth Warren who seeks to break up Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon. They have "too much power." Which sounds to me a lot like, "And I want it." The plan here seems to be boldly, "I'm opposed to any corporation with big money and signficant influence and I want to make sure we in the government get both." Is no one else hearing, "We're staunchly opposed to the Free Market"? Look, maybe they are. Certainly the Socialist Democrats are; maybe it's just a Democrat thing ... with a lot of backing from today's younger generation. Maybe. Just say so. That's fine. Don't hide behind "patriotism" while you aim to dismantle the underpinnings of the nation.

Identity Crisis
I'm sure she didn't mean this, but I'm not clear on what she meant. Alyssa Milano tweeted she was transgender, a "person of color," an immigrant, lesbian and gay man, and disabled. She says she just wanted to provide empathy. She said she was identifying with and not as. Ummm, okay ... but ... "I am" is an identity term, not an "identify with" term. And clearly, no matter what you think, you don't get to be who you think you are unless you are in those very specific categories now deemed "real". Like some in Islam, they say they want peace while they continue their aggression and wonder why peace isn't accepted.

99.99% Voter Turnout
North Korea had an election this week. A 99.99% turnout, they said. Wow! Didn't know it was a democracy, did you? Of course, you'd have to put "vote" in quotes since a North Korean election has no choice of candidates and voter turnout is mandatory and anything less than complete devotion to the Kim family is outlawed. You show up to "vote" and your ballot is a piece of paper with one name on it for each office. You place that paper in the ballot box and go home. Oh, and, surprise, surprise, guess who won? Hopefully not a system coming soon to a country near you.

Taking Its Cue from the Religion of Peace
Islam is known as "the religion of peace" while many adherents seek to kill as many infidels as they can. Following their example, it seems, Russia is complaining about the demise of the treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership with the Ukraine. Apparently after Russia backed a civil war within Ukraine and annexed the Crimean peninsula and seized three Ukrainian naval ships (they still hold the crews), Ukraine isn't interested in renewing the treaty. Imagine that! Ol' meanies. Or maybe Russia was just so impressed when the Nazis did the same thing to them that they thought the Ukraine would like to give it a go, too. "We'll completely violate the treaty and then whine about how you aren't interested in peace." Makes sense in today's world.

Ecclesiastes Illustrated
Solomon wrote, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil" (Ecc 8:11). In 1972 a group of soldiers shot protestors in an event that came to be known as Bloody Sunday. This week one of them will face charges for that shooting ... 47 years later. Sixteen other soldiers involved are not being prosecuted. Justice deferred is justice denied.

Bad Will Hunting
Connecticut's top court has ruled that the maker of the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook shooting can be liable for the actions of the nutjob that killed his mother and stole it from her to do the deed. It seems to me there are all sorts of problems with that. "If you market your car as 'the car that makes the man' and someone kills you and steals it and kills people with it, you can be held liable." Really?

But it's worse than that. According to the FBI, between 2010 and 2014 there were roughly 63,000 murders in America. Of those over two-thirds (68%) were done with firearms. And, as we all know, the leading firearm for these murders is the AR-15 or its cousins. Except that's not true. According to the FBI, the leading firearm is the handgun (70%) with rifles at 3.5% and shotguns at 3.7%. Now, to be fair, "other guns" and "type not stated" collectively make up nearly 23%, but clearly the winner (rather, loser) in this discussion is not the rifle or assault rifle, but the handgun. Of the total number of murders, knives make up nearly 13%, much more than the 2.4% that are rifles. 30% of all murders are done with knives, blunt objects, personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.), poison, explosives, fire, narcotics, drowning, strangulation, and other weapons. So why are we focusing on the 2.4%? Clearly murder is a bad thing and clearly we want to try to curtail it, so why are we pointing to such a small number? I get that we're trying to hunt down the killers and put an end to it, but it seems like we're looking in the worst possible places. (Note that New Zealand has drastically stricter gun laws than the U.S. and they have the same problems, so maybe gun laws are not the "fix all" that many seem to think they are.)

DOS
A New York court ruled that a former contestant on The Apprentice can proceed with her law suit against the president. She accuses him of sexual harassment in 2007 followed by defamation in 2016. The court ruled that a sitting president can be sued. The president, they said, is not above the law.

First, given the animosity of the entire state of New York against this president, I don't know who would have expected a different ruling. Second, I don't understand how "You can sue him when he's out of office" equates with "above the law." Finally, I can foresee a withering firestorm of lawsuits levied against this president that would so cripple him (in computers we call it "DOS" -- Denial of Service -- where the attack is so intense that nothing else can be done regardless of the effectiveness of the attacks) that he could leave office without doing another presidential thing. Any president-hater can use this new option to cause havoc without any real merit. Let's see if we can cripple America by suing its leadership.

Speaking of Universal Healthcare
Okay, the Green New Deal has been nagging at the back of our news cycles for a few weeks now. It includes government-managed healthcare. So it seems appropriate to run this story on a guy who took advantage of a 3-hour wait at the DMV to write an argument for government-managed healthcare.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Where Are You Going?

It seems to me that many of us start off on trips without keeping in mind where we're going. We don't have a clear view of the aim. We aren't at all sure what the point is. So we go to school or we go to work or we enter relationships and marriages and such with only a vague notion of where we're going with this.

Consider, for instance, the dilemma of prayer. We know that God is sovereign (I prefer the capital S, but I still think that most Christians agree that He is sovereign in some sense.) He is omniscient. He is omnipotent. He is perfect. And so ... we pray. What? Why? If God knows everything and God has the power to do whatever He wants and God is actually in charge, why do we bother? It's not like you're going to say, "Dear Lord, please help my friend Jimmy. He has cancer." And God is going to say, "Wait ... what? Jimmy has cancer?? When did that happen??!" He knows it. And He can heal it if He wants. He doesn't need you to ask. He's going to do what He's going to do. And yet, we pray. Why? Well, there are reasons, but if we're not clear on where we're going with prayer, the reasons won't be clear. We pray first and foremost because He said to. We are to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17). Jesus taught His disciples "that they ought always to pray and not lose heart" (Luke 18:1). We pray because we're supposed to. But that doesn't answer why. Prayer is our communication path with God. In it we ask and we thank, we confess and we implore. We ask, seek, and knock. "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God" (Php 4:6). Did you catch that? We pray with supplication and thanksgiving to eliminate our worries. No, prayer doesn't change God's mind or God's information. It changes us. It makes us humble. It teaches us dependency. It directs our attention. It glorifies God. If your aim is to get God to do what you want Him to do, you're using prayer for the wrong reasons (James 4:3). Prayer is to aid your relationship with God. If that's your aim, prayer works. If your aim is to twist God's arm with it, you will be disappointed with prayer. God uses our prayers in His work and we get to participate in His work with our prayer, but informing God or changing His will is not a function of prayer. We need to know where we're going with prayer or we will find ourselves frustrated.

I think we have all sorts of misguided ideas about where we're going with what we're doing. I think this is true in all sorts of things we all face every day. What is the purpose of Christianity? Is it to make bad people into good people? Is it a fire escape, so to speak? No. What is the point of life? Is it money, sex, power, fun? Is it a chance to fulfill my desires and dreams? No. What is the point of Christian Apologetics? To make converts? To argue people into the kingdom? No. What is the point of church? Is it to get large crowds and a good band? No. We need to ask this about everything in life and we need to have a clear grasp on the right answer because if we don't know where we're going, it will be hard to get there, we won't know if we do, and we won't likely know where to go.

Count the Cost

We are Americans. Even the poorest of us has more than the majority of the world. A family of of five living at the poverty line in the U.S. is actually "the 1%" compared to the rest of the world. "Poor" is relative, and Americans -- even the "less wealthy" -- are rich.

That's why it's so tough for me to read about the rich young ruler. A seemingly sincere young man with money asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 18:18). Good question! Good attitude! And you're asking the very best Person! This is great! But it wasn't. Jesus asked for perfection (Luke 18:19-20) and then pointed out his single most difficult problem -- wealth. "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me" Luke 18:22). "Yeah, we hear You, Jesus," we say. "'Come, follow Me.' We got it. We'll do that. Hmmm? What's that? Nope, I didn't hear anything about too much wealth."

My all-time most-viewed entry for this blog is from 2006 on the topic of "Sell all your possessions." It's what we do. Dodge it. Jesus did not mean "Sell all your possessions," right? No, of course not. But ... and then we dodge it. We play the game. "If He didn't actually mean that Christians must own absolutely nothing, then He must have meant we don't have to do anything at all about our wealth." What kind of logic is that? Bad logic.

Jesus did not make "own nothing at all" a prerequisite to salvation despite what skeptics (anti-theist and Christian alike) claim. What we must face is that because of our wealth as American Christians, we're using that fact to suggest that Jesus said nothing at all. We are relying on our wealth to keep us safe and happy. We trust our funds to supply our needs. We promise God everything, but keep our bank accounts, televisions, and comfortable lives from the potential chopping block. Brothers, these things ought not be.

Wealth isn't a sin. Idolatrous wealth is. Who is it that we're supposed to count on to keep us safe and happy, to supply our needs? It's not that stuff. When we do, it's idolatry and we American Christians sin. I struggle with this. I suspect I'm not alone.

Question Authority

The problem I mentioned before -- "patriarchy" -- is actually problem of sin. However, even that is hard to pick out of patriarchy. That is, the notion of patriarchy is that it is a system of male-led authority which is, by definition, bad. It is oppression. It is evil. No one should be in that position. Really? Is that where we are? Has our decades old "Question authority" become "Deny all authority"? Yes, yes it has.

The problem of patriarchy is the problem of authority. Oh, we don't put it that way. What we say is the problem is oppression of women by men. (No one seems to be concerned about the oppression of men by women where it occurs.) The problem of patriarchy is male supremacy. (That feminism seeks female supremacy is not an issue.) Most of us recognize that not all men are rapists or sexual abusers (although very, very few seem to think that women might be rapists or sexual abusers) (and "all men are ..." is almost always wrong). The problem is a male domination -- male-controlled, male-centered value and authority. Under this hierarchy is rape and sexual abuse, domestic violence, devaluation of women, unequal pay, all that.

The message women are sending to men these days is "We don't need you anymore." It is wrong for men to want to defend women. The "damsel in distress" idea is evil, immoral, outdated. But the problem isn't women. And the problem isn't men. The problem is authority. In our mindset today we love "freedom," by which we mean "Do whatever I want to do." It might be sexual freedom -- perform whatever acts with whoever I want. It might be the right to "follow your dream," to "be what you want to be." It might be the right to do nothing at all. But the child's rebel yell, "You're not the boss of me!" is our adult yell, too. Not the people around you or even God. "I will be like the Most High." The most basic element of sin. Even Christians do this. We nod our heads to the sovereignty of God and then assure the world that He has sovereignly surrendered His sovereignty to Man's free will and still hold that he's sovereign. We submit to Him ... if it suits us.

We're mistaken on a couple of key points here. First, we think we are the best decider of our own direction and fate. Obvious foolishness given God's Omniscience, love, and goodness. Then we think that submitting is diminishing. If we submit, we're "less" somehow. This one is understandable because sometimes it's true. But not always, and we miss that fact. Jesus was in submission to the Father, but that didn't make Him "less"; it made Him obedient and useful and, ultimately, wildly successful. And that was the Son of God. How much more should we submit, first to God and then to those whom God has set over us?

Rejection of authority for human beings begins with rejection of God's authority simply because we are sinners at heart. Hostility to God is natural (Rom 8:7). It's Satan's job to convince us that we need to be our own authority because any recognition of authority over us could very easily lead to a recognition of God's authority. So we set up alternatives pushing toward anarchy when anarchy is patently nonsense. We question authority as if it's a virtue to do so and complain when authority is present, never realizing that authority is necessary and can be highly beneficial. Especially when it's God.

Captain Marvel - Not Quite a Review

The Captain Marvel movie did well at the box office for its first weekend. I didn't see it, so this is not a review. However ...

If you've been disconnected and didn't know it, the title character is a woman. If you've been connected from the start, you might know that it wasn't always so. Captain Marvel was introduced to the Marvel Comic line in 1967 when an alien named Mar-Vell (I can't make this stuff up) arrived on the planet. (To tell the truth, Fawcett Comics introduced their own Captain Marvel in 1966, but you might know him better as "Shazam" today.) His assistant was Carol Danvers in the Marvel series. An Air Force pilot and love interest for Captain Marvel, they called her Ms Marvel in 1977 when they endowed her with superpowers of her own. (Note the "Ms", a hat tip to feminism in the 70's.) She wasn't actually promoted to "Captain" until 2012 "pushing to create a safer space for women inside comic fandom." So Kevin Feige, Marvel Studios head, thought it was important to have a female-driven, female-written, female-directed female superhero star to be "the most powerful Marvel superhero." Why? As one fan wrote, it is the end of "dying patriarchy."

Ah, there it is! We're not looking at defeating bad guys. Just guys. No, no, that's not accurate. Just guys in power. Patriarchy. That's the thing that's gotta go. But ... why? What's so bad about patriarchy? The truth is, nothing. It's not patriarchy that's the problem. It is the abuses of patriarchy. It is the control, abuse, inequality, the rape and sexual abuse and cruelty done in the name of patriarchy. It is the dismissal, rejection, and "foot on the neck" treatment of women done in the name of patriarchy. It is displayed in the MeToo movement and all its offshoots. So horrendous are these abuses of women in all its forms tied to men that they have simply substituted the term "patriarchy" to mean what the abuses have been perpetrated rather than, you know, what it means.

Now, I'm thinking ... whose idea do you suppose that was?

Patriarchy, you see, as an original concept, was not the idea of men. It was God's idea. He made Adam first (Gen 2:7-8) and made Adam responsible (Gen 2:15-17; 1 Tim 2:13-14). He warned that the sin condition would cause a conflict of authority and responsibility between men and women (Gen 3:16). He calls Himself "Father" (Matt 6:9; 1 Cor 8:6; etc.). He set up a hierarchy with a clear delineation: "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). It's in there. To deny it is simply to deny Scripture. So, if we agree that patriarchy is bad and patriarchy is dying and should be finally snuffed out, to what are we agreeing?

If we concur that patriarchy is bad, in the words of Robocop, "There will be ... trouble." Since patriarchy was God's idea, we would be stating unequivocally that God was mistaken. God erred. God goofed. He may have gotten a lot of things right, but not this. He certainly is not "Father". "Mother" maybe or "Other" perhaps, but not "Father". And, of course, that would mean that Jesus was wrong. He consistently referred to God as "Father" -- 42 times in Matthew alone; 92 times in John where He repeatedly stresses His relationship with the Father where He is in subjection to the Father. He was clearly wrong, wrong, wrong. And, of course, having clearly proven that God is not Father and Jesus is wrong in His ideas about His relationship to God, we've effectively nullified anything approaching reliable Scripture which, in the end, terminates any hope of a meaningful religion at all. Christianity, with an errant God, a misguided "Savior", and an unreliable guidebook, becomes errant, misguided, and unreliable. So I ask again, whose idea do you suppose this "end of patriarchy" thing was?

Perhaps, then, there is another possibility. Perhaps we might consider that abuses of a concept don't nullify the validity of the concept. If it was God's idea and God's design and God's plan, perhaps our misuse of it does not rightly reflect what God's idea, design, and plan should be in it. Like Christianity, in whose name lots of anti-Christian things have been done, patriarchy is not the problem, but sin is. Perhaps addressing "patriarchy" as the problem produces little net gain since it doesn't address the problem. But, of course, any attempt to point this out and redirect our attention to the real problem will be shouted down today, even in the church, because genuine biblical Christianity is not on the "bestseller" list, even among many called "Christians".

Conclude what you will here. Understand, however, that the problem is sin, not patriarchy, and that the militant feminism that the Captain Marvel thinking feeds is not about equality. It's about superiority. It's another "I want what you have and I hope to take it away from you." Or ... sin ... again. The "she" of this kind of feminism will not be satisfied. There is no "enough." Because with sin there is no "enough." It's like Christ surrendering authority to His Bride; never happened. Would you want it to? To many, the answer is "Yes!" To many, they've already usurped that authority. It's called "sin."

Friends and Enemies

Paul says something I cannot imagine coming out of my mouth. "Brothers, join in imitating me" (Php 3:17). Maybe it should, but I can't imagine it. He goes on to say "and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us." So Paul is talking about examples. Where do we look to find examples of how we ought to live as believers? Paul said, "Start with me." Then Paul warns about others.

For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. (Php 3:18-19)

There are other examples available for us. That is, there are those in among the believers who you might think could be good examples of how Christians might live. Paul warns about these bad examples.

The first thing that strikes me is Paul's lack of righteous indignation or moral outrage. He tells them with tears about these others. He's not angry; he is sorrowful. Are we?

So how do we tell a bad example? How does Paul describe an enemy of the cross of Christ? He lists 4 characteristics. "Their end is destruction," he says. They have the form of religion, but the end of it -- the direction it heads -- is eternal death. They say, "I believe in Jesus," but their actual actions and attitudes say something different. They say they follow Jesus but deny the doctrines that save. They claim to love God but reject His instructions from His Word. That cannot end well. "Their god is their belly," Paul says. They give God lipservice, but are really driven by their own immediate felt needs. They worship their own appetites. They live for self-indulgence and sensual gratification. "They glory in their shame," Paul says. Isaiah wrote, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa 5:20). Those are the people. Those people who claim to believe in and follow Jesus while denying the clear commands of Scripture and consider that denial a good thing, Paul says, are enemies of the cross of Christ. "Their minds are set on earthly things," Paul says. This is clear. Where are the values? Where are the standards? What is the source? If "one of us" is operating from a standard worldly perspective, then that one has their mind set on earthly things. If right and wrong are defined by what they see around them rather than by the One who made us, they have their minds set on earthly things. If their goals and values align with the world's goals and values, they have their minds set on earthly things. These people are enemies of the cross of Christ.

Examine them for yourself. You need to be able to tell what examples to avoid. You might want to see if you could be an enemy of the cross of Christ. That would be good to know, too.

Unrecognizable Love

A coworker of mine is from India. Recently he took his family back for a visit and a dual marriage. They had, you see, chosen spouses for his of-age son and daughter and they were going back for the wedding. Arranged marriages. Other coworkers were stunned. "How do you even ...?" "Where's the love?" One feebly said, "They believe that you can grow to love someone" but was met with shaking heads and disbelief. That doesn't happen.

Love just ain't what it used to be. Okay, that's not entirely accurate. There has always been romance, always been that "in love" feeling, that kind of thing. But what we appear to all recognize as "love" today hasn't always been the defining nature of "love". Consider, for instance, the famous 1 Corinthians 13 passage. I say famous because even secular weddings might use the section that describes love. Very nice. Interestingly, however, the King James Bible does not use the word "love" in that text. It uses "charity" because the "love" in view in this text (and many, many others) is not "romantic love." It's something quite different. In fact, if you read that description of love in that chapter, you'll find very little that hints at "warm affection," "heart goes pitter-pat," or "falling into." It's not in there.

We've bought a lie. All of us. We've been told that "Love is all we need" and that love is that romantic, heart-pounding, all-gooey-inside, emotion we feel for "that special one" or something like it. It's chemistry. The best kind, we think, is that "love at first sight." We've been told you "fall in love" and, obviously, if you can "fall in love," you can "fall out of love." Makes sense. But we all think that this thing we call love is grand. Maybe some are disillusioned by it, but only because they don't have it. So muddled are we that we've bought into "love is sexual desire" and "love means never having to say you're sorry" and "love is accepting others for who they are." Lots of nonsensical ideas. Psychology Today says, "Love is a force of nature. However much we may want to, we can not command, demand, or take away love, any more than we can command the moon and the stars and the wind and the rain to come and go according to our whims." To which we all nod and say, "Amen." All, I suppose, except God, because He commands it, and if love cannot be commanded, God is stupid.

Now, wait a minute, if God is not stupid and love can be commanded (and He certainly commands it), what can we then conclude? Love is not the unbidden, emotional link that makes us feel good. It is something else. It is something that we can choose to do. And if it is commanded, it does not depend on someone else. It's something we do at will -- that is, as a function of our will. We also know that God is love (1 John 4:8), requiring that the definition of love is determined by the nature of God. Actual love, then, is defined by and produced from God. John said, "Love is from God" (1 John 4:7). In that same verse John went on to say, "Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." You can see, then, that this is not romantic, emotional, everyday "love." Or everyone has been born of God.

This kind of love looks different. It doesn't seek anything from the loved one, but simply gives of itself. It seeks always for the best for the loved one even if that doesn't align with what they want. It is sacrificial, not sentimental. It is giving, not getting. This kind of love doesn't worry about being unrequited. Not the point at all. It is an act of the will, not a feeling of the heart. Mind you, a person who invests themselves in another person like that will certainly have feelings. You can't do that kind of love and not feel toward another as a result. But that's the result, the product, the side effect. This version of love is tied directly to a relationship with God and His provision of that love. This love is so far above the "warm affection" we accept as "love" so as to be almost completely disconnected in our minds.

Biblical love is a command. It assumes self-love (Eph 5:28-29), but goes far beyond. It is superior to the love we "fall into" and sourced by God Himself. Loving others is an act of obedience that is enabled by Him and can be given without abatement simply because "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). We can experience the lesser version the world offers today, but we should not miss out on this grand love that God has for us and gives to us. It is obedience, to be sure, but it is far more fulfilling, effective, and without end than anything this world has to offer. Their love is short term, emotional, and dependent on "chemistry." We have a much better gift from God.

News Weakly - 3/9/19

Pollute Them While They're Young
At least in one community in Canada the requirement will be that all public elementary schools fly the rainbow flag for at least one week during Pride Month in June. Elementary schools. You know, the one age where you believe whatever your teacher tells you, even if it is in opposition to what your parents tell you. That age where they tell their parents helping them with math homework, "That's not how the teacher did it, Dad. You're doing it wrong." Lest you think that public schools are (or, at least, should be) ideologically neutral. They're not. They will block religion, then substitute their own humanistic materialism with all its worship and works of the flesh. That's how it works; get them while they're vulnerable.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
Meet Brendan Johnston. He is a high school student in Colorado who came in fourth place in the state wrestling championships. He could have taken third place, but chose to forfeit a match rather than wrestle a girl. "I don’t want to treat a young lady like that on the mat. Or off the mat." It wasn't a lack of respect. "Wrestling is something we do, it's not who we are," he said. "I'm willing to have those priorities." Johnston has won 37 of his 43 matches his senior year. Five of those six losses were forfeits to girls -- four of them to the same girl to whom he surrendered third place. His choice ended his high school wrestling career. I would hope there is no commentary necessary, but in today's world where respecting women and where chivalry are considered sexist and hateful, comment will likely be necessary.

Lady Justice Without a Blindfold
Lady Justice is displayed with a balance, a sword, and a blindfold. We get the balance (make things even) and the sword (power to make it so), but what about the blindfold? The blindfold represents impartiality. Justice, the idea goes, can only occur if it is impartial. In some cases it is not. The House Judiciary Committee, emboldened by its majority and unified in its hatred for President Trump, has begun a sweeping probe ... because special counsel Robert Mueller hasn't found anything. They will examine his businesses, his campaign, the transition committee, Russian interference, a list of 81 names to start. The investigation is predicated on the position that "Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms" and the plan is to hold him accountable. This is not "innocent until proven guilty." It is "Mueller hasn't found him guilty, so we will" -- guilty even though he's been found innocent. I'm not a Trump fan, but surely the American people can see this has nothing to do with impartial justice. But, I don't think they will. The hate for all things "Trump" goes deep with this one -- the opposite of impartiality.

Responsibility Without Authority
Last week the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered that a 14-year-old girl receive testosterone injections without parental consent. Further, if either of her parents tried to persuade her to abandon the treatments, addressed her by her birth name, or referred to her with female pronouns, they would be guilty of family violence. Her father was concerned that other mental health issues were driving this gender dysphoria and he was troubled by the permanent ramifications of the hormone treatments, so he wanted her to wait until she was older. The court told him to start her treatments. The father has no say, but bears the responsibility to obtain the treatments he fears will harm his daughter. Parents, you should be prepared to surrender your parental rights to the governmental poison of the day ... in the name of "progress."

Intolerance Illustrated
Cynthia Nixon has declared an end to civility towards anyone who holds to biblical convictions about sexuality. While Joe Biden refers to Mike Pence as a "decent man," Nixon is outraged that anyone would argue that her particular sexual activities are a sin. It is ... her words ... "vile, hateful," "insidious and dangerous." She makes no pretense of actual tolerance -- "He's entitled to his opinion even though I disagree with him wholeheartedly." She believes she is being attacked and all should do the same to those who hold to the view that sexuality acceptable to God is limited to the traditional marriage bed. The double standard -- "You have to be tolerant but we will not!" -- is painful to watch. Christians, are you ready? We aren't edging away from persecution.

Actions Speak Louder
The New York Post did an exposé on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) ("Miss Green New Deal") regarding her "giant carbon footprint." While she pushes to save the planet in 12 years by demanding the elimination of combustion-engine vehicles and the use of public transit, she spent nearly $30,000 on Uber, Lyft, Juno, and other car services in combustion-engine vehicles even though her campaign office was less than 150 feet from a subway station. While she pushes to decrease or eliminate air travel, she spent $25,000 on airline transactions during her campaign. Her response is she was just "living in the world." The Green New Deal is about systematic change, she said, and not about personal practices. "Practice what you preach" is not a tagline for AOC ... or a lot of other people in that group.

We Have Consensus
The consensus on human-caused global climate change has long been touted as a strong reason to agree with the crisis and get a move on. Forbes is reporting that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis" and a strong majority believe that it will not be a very serious problem.

Now, mind you, I've never been a fan of "consensus" as a means of determining scientific fact. I'd prefer ... you know ... scientific fact to determine scientific fact. So I'm not really excited about this report. I'm just wondering how many rabid "the sky is falling and it's called anthropogenic global climate change" types will rein themselves in and admit, "Well, if we believed the consensus that it was a problem, then we'll believe the consensus that it's not a problem." I don't think that the "consensus" they threw at doubters will be allowed now that it is against them.

Untermenschen

It is a German word used by the Nazis to describe those "inferior people" that they opted to oppress and murder. Literally, it translates to "under-person". They weren't killing people; they were killing non-persons. It was the same logic when whites enslaved blacks in the South and when the KKK killed them for sport. They weren't killing people; these were non-persons. It's the same logic used by the Supreme Court in 1973 when they opted to legalize the murder of the unborn. "They may be human," they argued (and still argue today), "but they are not persons." They are untermenschen. The Senate this last week opted not to step in and defend children born alive. It appears that undermenschen is spreading to the "born alive" as well.

The court in 1973 declared that the unborn were "human non-persons," essentially. Under that classification, they have no rights and no protection. Kill them if you want; you're not killing a person. The idea was that "viability" determined personhood. Of course, our current move is to push that limit to the 4th trimester. "They're not a person until we say they are." Nazi Germany declared, de novo, that Jews were "human non-persons," essentially. Under that classification the Nazis stripped them of all rights, goods, and, as many as possible, life. Well, Jews and others. They weren't abusing people, you see. They were working, in a sense, with something less than a person. Non-persons have no expectation or right to rights, so it wasn't wrong. We know the result.

The question, then, swirls about in the air. In 1973 the court declared the unborn as undermenschen and, under the law, they became so. In today's world they're pushing that boundary farther out, after the "magical birth canal." "If we don't want that baby, it's gone. If we intended to kill it before it left the birth canal, we should be allowed to kill it afterwards." So how long until it moves down the human chain? And how far? Peter Singer suggested up to 3 years old. That far? Why? And on what basis? Babies in the womb are killed if they aren't wanted, making them permanent undermenschen. The criterion there is "the woman's choice". What about born children? When will we leave that up to the mother? "I wasn't happy with them; I killed them. They were undermenschen." Lacking any basis to prevent such a slide, what can we now expect a little further down the road?

Besetting Sins

You've probably heard the term. You won't find it in modern Bibles. The King James talks about "let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us" (Heb 12:1). Modern translations talk more about entanglement. Fine. The principle remains. You and I have besetting sins -- sins that seem to hang around, trip us up. We are running along and we trip over something and we say, "Oh, come on, I thought that was dealt with!" And it wasn't. What's a brother to do?

We often live in one of two extremes. One side says, "You can be a Christian and sin to your heart's content." The other says, "You can be a Christian and sin your way into hell." Both of them seem rational. Both of them are wrong. Scripture is abundantly clear that we are saved for good works (Eph 2:10) and that those who are born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9). On the other hand, God's Word is equally clear that those who are in His hand will remain in His hand (John 10:29). What then? We cannot make a practice of sin, but we do sin (1 John 1:8; 1 John 2:1-2).

So, here we are, genuine believers who sin and hate it. We are almost schizophrenic, hating sin and still doing it. And we seem to have our "pet sins", those "besetting sins" that entangle us again and again. We want to stop but don't. We repent and turn and declare "Never again", but apparently "never" is actually not as far off as we thought. So what are we to do?

Scripture isn't silent on the topic. We are told, for instance, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). I suspect that some of our problem sins are problem sins because we don't do that. We don't share our burdens and we don't bear one another's burdens. The mere suggestion terrifies some Christians. "Then they'll know I'm a sinner!" Which is true, but it is premised on the faulty idea that those other guys aren't. And they want to maintain the same image that you do -- "Don't let them know I struggle with sin" -- especially that sin. So we don't do it and we should (because, you know, God said so).

The reference I started with is also helpful.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb 12:1-2)

First, it contains the command. Lay aside those "besetting sins", those sins that encumber, those sins that tie us up when we're trying to run. Do it! How? "Looking to Jesus." That's what the author of Hebrews says. He started our faith. He is perfecting our faith. Look to Him. Look at what He endured to save us. Look at how little value He put in shame. The text goes on to say, "Consider Him who endured from sinners such hostility against Himself so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted" (Heb 12:3). Jesus struggled with sin to death; we haven't (Heb 12:4). If that's not enough for you, the author goes on to warn of the discipline of the Lord (Heb 12:5-11). That ought to help.

If you don't suffer from sins, you aren't human. We all do. If it is true that all sin, then why are we so hesitant to share it? Why do we listen to the enemy who tells us to keep quiet about it? Why aren't we bearing one another's burdens? Complaining about our sin is natural -- if you don't, at least to yourself and God, you may need to examine your relationship with Him -- but we should be doing something about it. He is perfecting our faith; we should be cooperating. He is our best possible example; we should be following Him. You tend to go where you look. Are you looking to Jesus? Or, sure, I suppose it could be just me who struggles with sin. Who knows?

We're Getting Better

"Progress," they call it. They even term an ideology "progressive" and those who follow it "progressives." Because we're progressing ... right? Or, are we?

Throughout the entire history of mankind from beginning to the 21st century we always knew what marriage was. We varied in its outworking, its modes, its rules, but we never varied in its basic definition: A man and a woman joined for life for the purposes of mutual support and for procreation. Some cultures embraced marriage in multiples -- we call it polygamy -- but even in a polygamous society if one man and one woman are married, they're married. Even in polygamous societies the man only married one woman; the "wives" (plural) never married each other. Marriage has always been the same thing. Enter "progress." In a push for "marriage equity," our "progressive" society did not redefine it; they undefined it. It is now some vague "two of us" for unclear purposes and no definition of why only two. By golly, that's progress. No. It's not even regress. We aren't going backward. We've left the road entirely.

There has never been any question about the sexes. In 1946's Annie Get Your Gun Ethel Merman sings Doin' What Comes Natur'lly, a song about how you can get along in life without serious schooling. One example in the song says, "My little baby brother, who's never read a book, knows one sex from the other, all he had to do was look." You'd think. All of human history and science prior to the 21st century has been certain that "binary gender" is a biological fact. Couldn't get around it. What idiot would think otherwise? There are things that only males do and there are things that only females do and never the twain shall meet. But we've progressed since then. We've figured out that men can be women and women men and there is a spectrum -- a movable one -- in which humans can move. So we've progressed to 50+ genders that make no sense and can't be backed by actual science and don't even actually work out in everyday life. While no male-to-female transgender has ever been able to get pregnant and no female-to-male transgender has ever been able to impregnate (just a couple of biological functions unique to the two genders), we're pretty sure that they are not set and you can be whatever you feel like. Oh, in gender, of course. Not race or anything else. And if you decide you were born one gender and are actually another, you are never allowed to change your mind and say you were wrong. That's "progress."

They tell me we're getting better. I heard it just the other day. Better education, better healthcare, more women empowered (this was the list they actually gave me). Better. We do it at the cost of rationality. We do it by denying fundamental biology, by denying basic definitions that have existed since the beginning of time, by ignoring basic ideas. For instance, America was founded on the premise that people had the right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs and the government didn't get to tell them what to believe. It was foundational. It was the primary reason why many of those who first came to this continent came at all. When it wasn't addressed in the Constitution, they made sure it was addressed in the Bill of Rights because it was important. To them. Not to us. We've transitioned from "free exercise of religion" to "separation of Church and State" (not contained anywhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights) to "limited exercise of religion" to being arrested and fined for exercising that right. This is "progress." Deconstructing marriage and family is "progress". Denying basic biology and embracing a "feel like it" biology is "progress".

And we're not done. We're moving farther away. We're moving away from the religious moorings, the economic principles, the basic concept of God-given rights. We're moving without braking or correction. We're not getting better.

Applying the Wrong Solutions

We disagree, I'm sure, but most of us are pretty sure that we know what should be done about the gun violence in America. That would be to limit guns, right? I mean, if you can limit guns (or even eliminate guns), you can limit (or eliminate) gun violence. Easy. Even a certainty. Drugs are a problem in our country, so we started the "drug war" by targeting dealers and such to stem the flow. That ought to stem the problem, right? Well, on that one we're pretty sure the answer is "no". But ... why? I mean, isn't the same logic? Eliminate guns and eliminate gun violence. Eliminate the drug supply and eliminate the drug problem. But it clearly hasn't worked.

The reason is obvious on the surface. You can't eliminate drugs. You can stop them coming through that door, but they'll come through this other one. You can block this access, and they'll come in the window. They'll always be getting in. Why? Because it's not the source; it's the market. It's not the supply; it's the demand. Guns are the same. The theory that eliminating guns eliminates gun violence is sound, but you can't eliminate guns. In America they are there by constitutional right. But even in countries where they've been "eliminated", gun violence is still there. And, worse, it's just a shell game. They will tell you that gun violence is down or even eliminated, but there are still knives, baseball bats, automobiles, hands (one of the leading murder weapons), poisons ... we are virtual murder-weapon factories.

You see, the problem isn't guns. Or drugs. The problem is people. But, of course, our society can't see that because our society believes that people are basically good. Utter nonsense, of course. You just have to look around you to see that. Drive a freeway sometime and see how that theory works out. The number of people that let you in versus the number of people that cut you off is not a close ratio. No, we are born sinners (Psa 51:5), dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3), hostile to God (Rom 8:7). No less than God said, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). No amount of "People are basically good" will overcome that problem. No sin legislation or vice control will fix it.

I don't say this to point fingers at people. I say this to point out that we have the answer. We -- Christians, believers, God's ambassadors -- have the Gospel. The Good News. The way to be born anew, born of the Spirit, indwelt by the Spirit. The old is passed away. So if we have the actual answer to the drug problem and the gun problem and the abortion problem and the ... well, the sin problem, why are we so timid? Why are we so quiet?

That's easy. It's because they don't want it. They don't want the answers we have. They are, after all, hostile to God. The good news to us is that it is God who has the capability of overcoming that. It is God who actually opens hearts (Acts 16:14). That is, the success of your mission of making disciples starting with giving them the Gospel is not premised on you; it is premised on God. So, what are you waiting for? We have problems in this country. Don't waste time with legislation, "drug wars", or gun control. They need Jesus. You have Jesus, don't you? How about sharing?

A Prayer of Repentance

Psalm 51 is David's documented repentance after being called out as an adulterer by the prophet, Nathan. He pulls no punches; he was guilty. He admits that His sin was against God (Psa 51:4) and that he was a sinner from conception (Psa 51:5), but that he wanted truth in his inward being (Psa 51:6). He counted on God to make Him clean since He couldn't (Psa 51:7). In the 10th verse he says, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Now, that is a loaded prayer.

The prayer has two primary components and both carry their own parts. The first is a prayer for a clean heart. We can assume from that that David did not believe his heart was clean. He believed in what the theologians refer to as "Original Sin" -- that all humans are sinners. He understood that we are all in need of a clean heart. But he asked to have it created because we lack the capacity to do it ourselves. That was done by God alone.

The second part is often missed. He asked that God would renew a right spirit within him. We typically pray for forgiveness, repent of our sins, ask for cleansing, that sort of thing. But the need is actually two-fold. There is a need for a clean heart, but there is an additional need for a right spirit. There is a need to be cleaned, but that leaves us blank; we also need to be right. Interestingly, the word David used there was not "create" but "renew". That suggests there was, at some point, a "right spirit" and he needed that right spirit renewed.

The same is true for us. Paul said, "For our sake He (God) made Him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him (Christ) we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). We see the two components there. In the first, the sin is taken away. In the second, we become righteous. Both are needed. We have forgiveness; we have the righteousness of Christ. Still, we constantly need to come to the Advocate (1 John 2:1-2) who paid for our sins. We need to confess -- literally to "say with" God -- our sins. We need a clean heart. We need a renewed right spirit. We need it often. We need to share in David's wisdom and David's repentance and David's prayer.

All About Me

Jesus said, "I will build My church" (Matt 16:18) and proceeded to die and rise again to make that happen. It has always been absolutely clear from Scripture that the Church is not ours, not even about us, but about Him. The works of believers are supposed to bring glory to the Father (Matt 5:16). We are blessed by God to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:5-6,12,14). Since everything is about His glory (1 Cor 10:31), certainly church is as well. It is His making, His doing, His maintaining, and for His purposes.

Why is it, then, that we tend make it all about us? We work to make it more appealing. We aim to produce the proper emotional response toward our church, toward God, and toward others. We aim to encourage people, which isn't all bad, but we do it at the cost of things like biblical mandates and God's stated purposes. We will, for instance, make sure there is a gospel invitation but we won't make disciples. We will endure a sermon but not a sermon that makes us feel bad. (And "feel bad" includes "had to sit in that pew too long".) We'll sing songs that make us feel good -- hopefully toward God -- but not "those other kind of songs" (whether that's "old songs" or "too heavy songs" or what Larry Norman termed "funeral music", or, for some, those "too contemporary" songs). Upbeat. Cheerful surroundings. Current technology. Sermons that don't meddle. These are what we want in churches. All of it aimed at us.

Oh, we let God in there, to be sure. Not the Transcendent God. We like the Immanent God, the one that is "right here", the "buddy" God, the one more like us. Mind you, He is, in some sense or another, all of that, but I would think that worship would include, nay, demand that we embrace and extol the Transcendent God much, much more. So far above us. Over all. The God of Paul. "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" (Rom 11:33) The God of Job "Who does great things beyond searching out and marvelous things beyond number" (Job 9:10). The God of David, the knowledge of Whom he says, "is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it" (Psa 139:6). We like the "Abba" God, but that "out there" God isn't really our cup of tea.

I live in a troubled world where sin seems to be on the rise and sin-bred insanity seems to be the norm. Governments are endorsing sin wholesale and moving against God's people. In our nation the move seems to be away from everything God and toward the full embrace of immorality as god -- not merely allowed, but worshiped. In this kind of a world I need a God who is Immanent -- right here beside me -- but I desperately need a God who is above it all, not mired in the day to day, not shackled by His creation, not losing ground or muddling through. I need that Transcendent God. And if church is about the equipping of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ to attain unity and maturity (Eph 4:11-14), I would think that the rest of the Church would, too.

News Weakly - 3/2/2019

You've Come a Long Way, Baby
Since forever in America only men could put themselves in harm's way in the military. Women could serve in non-combat roles, but only men would go to the shooting part of war. In the last couple of decades, that was overturned. We opted to take the best of humanity -- women -- and place them in the worst of situations -- war -- and call it "equality". Of course, that only went so far. The idea was that women who wanted to be put in that kind of danger could, but none would be required to. That's not equality. A federal court has ruled that a male-only draft is unconstitutional. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, and women get the "privilege" of signing up to die in the case of sufficient conflict. If they don't register for the draft, there will be consequences. There's your equality. Good job, ladies.

Kissing America Goodbye?
Ultra-liberal Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein collided with climate activist children in a duel over what constitutes sufficient action to save the planet from human-caused global climate change. The children from the Sunrise Movement assured her that we need to eliminate capitalism and turn our lives over to a socialist government to save the planet and she assured them, "I know what I'm doing." It did not play well. Unfortunately, the large and growing portion of the Democratic party as well as the younger generation has no concept of the evils of socialism and really believe that the philosophy of government and economy that made America great in its first 200 years plus of existence have no place in this world. They'd much rather kiss that America goodbye and let a government run our lives.

The Wrong Message
I mentioned the Green New Deal before. I mentioned how Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned to bring the Senate version by Senator Markey to a vote and how odd it was that Senator Markey was opposed to it. Not to be outdone, a crowd of activists from the Sunrise Movement (those kids again) are equally upset by McConnell's plan ... to bring the bill to a vote ... which would seem like he's giving the bill its day in the sun ... but apparently is not. A group of 42 mostly young people were arrested for obstructing the Capitol building, but more were there including as young as 7. McConnell appears to want the Democrats to go on record that they support this kind of socialism in America, and these folks appear to want that socialism but ... not on record??

What I want to know is who is brainwashing these young minds?

Be afraid, America. The loudest young voices want to remove your capitalism and your democracy and make it a socialism. Oh, you be afraid. I have other plans.

Disappointing
Generally speaking, if I go somewhere new and need to find a church -- say, on a Sunday while on vacation -- I can generally expect that a Baptist church, especially Southern Baptist (SBC), should be okay. With the latest scandal of so many being sexually abused in the SBC, I have to think again. Then a story like this hits the headlines and I'm ... disappointed. A Southern Baptist megachurch in Texas ordained a woman to the pastorate. I would like to think that an SBC church would stand firmly on the Word, but I suppose this is wishful thinking.

Outdoing Others
New York passed a baby-killing bill that the governor said could extend to post-partum abortion. Vermont followed suit with a "kill 'em any time up to birth" law. Illinois is considering its own plan to eliminate restrictions on abortion up to birth and require churches and other religious organizations to provide insurance that covers it. In the meantime, a host of names that includes many of the current group of 2020 presidential candidates is on a bill before Congress aimed at insuring the slaughter of the most defenseless humans is legal and unlimited, aimed specifically at all those states that have tried to limit abortion through limitations on medical professionals or informed consent. What they want to do is make America pro-abortion/anti-life by law.

At the same time, a bill was introduced that would protect newborns who were born alive. Seems like a no-brainer, but the Senate shot it down. They failed to secure enough votes to outlaw infanticide -- actual killing of infants. The declaration is absolutely clear: "They are not persons until we say they are persons ... and we're not saying when that is" with a faint, threatening echo of "We haven't decided if you're a person, either."

Not to be Outdone
While the "Green New Deal" is running its news gauntlet trying to push America into socialism, House Democrats have unveiled another "next step" plan to get us away from market forces and let the government handle things. Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal from Washington state has revealed her bill for a single-payer "Medicare for All" program. The government will pay for your healthcare. She has not revealed how the government would pay for it, but there would be no premiums or deductibles or out-of-pocket costs. She suggests it will come from that "tax on millionaires and billionaires" pot that the other socialists in government are planning to tap for everything else. Goodbye 70% tax rates; hello 90%. (The New Green Deal, Forbes tells me is expected to cost $2.5 trillion a year for the next 10 years, added to the 2018 $4.5 trillion budget. All this "prosperity" is going to get pricey, folks.)

Wrong-headed, Right Vote
The United Methodist Church (UMC) rejected a move to ease their ban on same-sex marriage and ordination of openly gay clergy. That was, frankly, a surprise. A pleasant surprise, but a surprise nonetheless. Why it was a surprise to me was illustrated in the story. A "former Methodist pastor Rebecca Wilson" (emphasis mine) said she was devastated because she left the clergy "because I'm gay," and not because they don't ordain women. Included in that story was the suggestion that "the faith" was somehow up for a vote. In other words, God's Word is not the authority here and there is no such thing as "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

In general, the UMC believes in no such thing, as illustrated by the outrage and defiance from their people at this vote for what is termed "the Traditional Plan." The Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), a United Methodist organization promoting LGBTQIA+ (their letters, not mine) inclusion, complained that any opposition to including "LGBTQIA+" people is based on "a white nationalist strain of Christianity", which is strange since one of the main reasons the Traditionalist Plan passed was the large African presence who demanded biblical rather than social positions. Go figure.

Some Dare Call It Treason
Bradley Manning ... oh, I'm sorry ... Chelsea Manning, a guy who decided to be a girl ... on your dime ... while serving his time for violations of the Espionage Act (what most of us call "treason") has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury to testify, we don't know what about. Probably about his, sorry, "her" contact with Julian Assange. I understand that. What I don't understand is when issuing a subpoena became unconstitutional. At least, that's where Manning's legal team plans to go. This will be so cool if we discover that the government no longer has the right to call people in to court. The end of the American justice system as we know it. Good plan ... from a documented traitor.

Quick Question
While France wrestles with giving females their own job titles, I'm wondering who's looking out for the "T's" (of the LGBT)? Given the "given" that gender is not binary, when are the "in-betweens" going to get their own job titles? I'm just wondering ...

No Kids Allowed

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) believes that having children is immoral. No, no, she's not arguing for a chinese-type ban on children. She's not talking about legislation. She just thinks that, given global climate change and millennial debt and how hard it is too live in this world and all that, reproducing humans is an evil, not a good.

It's not like she's alone. I'm not pointing to her as the leading edge of a movement. We recently saw a story about a guy who wants to sue his parents for him being born without his consent. He's a "anti-natalist" who believes that all reproduction is evil and the only way to solve the problems in life is to eliminate all life. But this guy isn't the leading edge, either. In fact, birth rates in developed countries are on the decline everywhere.

The fact that human beings no longer carry intrinsic worth is the leading edge. This is demonstrated in the 1973 decision that privacy outweighs personhood and children can be summarily executed on the whim of their mothers. This leads to the obvious conclusion that killing people if they want to be killed (referred to as "euthanasia") is a perfectly good thing. So confused are we that defending living babies is not the right thing for us to do. Australian ethicist Peter Singer logically argues that belief in the special value of human beings is merely "speciesism" and we should have no qualms about killing them all the way out to 2 or 3 years old. Makes sense in the current worldview.

So far reaching is this notion that Christians are buying into it (see, for instance, this article). "Have kids? No thank you. Not really interested. Certainly not sure it's a good idea." Biblically-minded Christians will tell me, "That whole 'Be fruitful and multiply' thing is old, Old Testament, no longer applicable to our world or times." It is no longer a defining or recommended or, possibly, even desired feature of "marriage." I'm not talking about the "If we had a child it would likely physically kill my wife" kind of thinking. I'm talking about the "I can't be bothered," "We can't afford it," "There's already too many people in the world" kind of thinking. I'm talking about the idea that child-bearing and child-rearing are purely optional if you're in the mood for it and very likely not a very good idea for us.

So where do we go with this? Do we side with the "anti-natalists"? No, of course not. But what about the AOC's of this world? Is is morally wrong to have children in this day and age? Maybe only if you don't want them or can't afford them? Is human reproduction, biblically a function of marriage, no longer a function of marriage? Now it's preference? Or is the goal of producing children a highly recommended, essentially normative activity ("normative", that which establishes what is normal) for the married Christian?

If that old-fashioned view is out, I have to ask what we're supposed to do with the texts. Do we discard "Be fruitful and multiply" as "Old Testament" and "No longer applicable"? When the psalmist says, "Children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them" (Psa 127:3-5), do we correct him and tell him, "Sure, that was in your day, but God no longer thinks so"? I am pretty sure that there are a sufficient number of folks that are happy to discard Paul's argument that women are "saved through childbearing" (1 Tim 2:11-15). (Note: That "saved" doesn't mean "saved from sin".) Can we safely do that? I suspect we're not asking these questions anymore because we've bought the current mindset that how we feel determines what we should do, that what we want is what is right. We can be quite certain that "what we want" is not a valid measure of what is right. Maybe we should be examining this idea more.